Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the once-again dept

Well this is bizarre. Despite doing these "funniest/most insightful" posts for a while, just a month ago we had the first time ever in which the top two vote getters in both "funny" and "insightful" were the same two posts. Then, two weeks ago... it happened again. And here we are and it's happened again. With one slight twist. Those last two times the first place comment was first in both categories, and the second place comment was second in both categories. This week... the two comments flip flopped. So first up, we've got Mesonoxian Eve, whose comment about the DMCA, took first place in most insightful and second place in funniest:

DMCA: Don't Mess with Corporate America.

Then, coming in first place for funniest, but second place for most insightful, was an Anonymous Coward who noticed a typo in my comment that "other countries don't always view freedom of speech as being as central or as important as the US does":

Typo alert:

"other countries don't always view freedom of speech as being as central or as important as the US does"

That should be "Ecuador" and not "the US"

Moving on to editor's choice. We had John Fenderson respond concerning the US betraying its values in the pursuit of Assange. I had noted that some might claim that the US was never really a beacon of human rights, and there were plenty of examples where the US had failed to live up to its stated standards. John, however, pointed out that there was a difference:

This is true. There is a difference in kind, however.

In the past, when the US has failed to live up to its own standards, it was a mistake, a failure. Now, the US has altered the standards we hold ourselves to. We are not living up to the standards of the past, true, but we are living up to our current standards.

This is what is making us lose legitimacy around the world, not mistakes. People understand that mistakes happen, and that when nations fail to uphold their own standards, that doesn't make them bad nations. Having unacceptable standards, however, does.

Interestingly, if they had managed to convict him for online copyright infringement (under s107(2A) CDPA), the most he could have got would have been 2 years in prison. So 'facilitating' online copyright infringement = 4 years in prison, whereas online copyright infringement itself = < 2 years.

Conspiracy to defraud is a ridiculous law. The Law Commission attempt to repeal it a few years ago, when English Fraud laws were updated for the 21st (or 20th) century. The Government accepted that the law was bad, but refused to repeal it just in case they wanted to use it later...

And now it is being used by the Hollywood types to ruin people's lives through private prosecutions, where, I guess, they feel that locking someone away for 2 years just isn't enough.

Ok, enough of the serious stuff. What else is funny? How about an Anonymous Coward responding to my explanation for why Google's move to downrank sites that get a lot of DMCA notices won't help and will likely have significant negative costs for Google. The AC did such a good troll satire that someone even "reported" that comment.

Please Masnick, you make it sound like trying to do nothing is better than trying to do something expensive and ineffectual!

I think that may be the RIAA/MPAA motto.

And, finally, we've got another Anonymous Coward responding to Nathan Myhrvold's ridiculous claim that because he's trying to zap mosquitoes to stop Malaria, no other tech company can criticize his patent trolling. Specifically, he called out other companies by saying, "Is Zynga doing God's work? Is Facebook doing God's work?" To which this AC responded:

Some might say the mosquitoes are God's work.

I think the AC won that round... Anyway, we'll be back tomorrow with lots of new posts, but in the meantime, don't forget to check out the new Techdirt Insider Shop!

Reader Comments

Any chance you'll engage me today in a discussion about why you think piracy is not OK, Mike? I'm still waiting for you to stop making excuses about why you won't/can't actually discuss the issue.

It's a simple, straightforward question, and the fact that you absolutely refuse to ever discuss it directly says no-so-good things about you, don't you think?

I mean, you can't stop talking about piracy--nary a day goes by that you don't publish a new article about the subject. But when a TD reader wants to engage you on your personal beliefs on the subject, mum's the word.

What gives? It's absolutely incredible to me that you can dodge this conversation for years like this. And don't try and spin it such that your reluctance has something to do with me. Your reluctance to address the issue is clearly your own--you refuse to talk about it no matter who instigates the conversation.

I'm sure this comment will get "reported," just like all other comments on TD that question the man behind the curtain. Sad, really.

Re: Re:

Just in case you're too lazy to click the link, I'm gonna copy and paste

"efore you could reply? Angry? LMAO!

Let's link to a few of your recent comments, shall we?

First off, this one.

Why are you and Pirate Mike such pirate-apologist sacks of shit? Sorry to use curse words, but as far as I can tell, you both deliberately lie about who is truly to blame for piracy. In my opinion, both of you are worthless sacks of shit for pretending like piracy is the fault of anyone other than the pirates. Please go fuck yourselves and die.

And how about this one

Brilliant retort! So devoid of substance! That's the par for Techdirt. Complete fucking idiots pretending like they know it all = Pirate Mike and Techdirt Army. Kudos!

I think most people can reasonably make the statement that you are angry. I won't even go digging for the comment from a couple weeks ago about how you think I'm going to get cancer and die soon.

Anything but to have an actual honest, open, and awesome debate with me. Why do you run away every, every, every, every, every, every, EVERY SINGLE TIME? Why won't Mike Masnick actually ever engage a detractor in an actual debate where he addresses the actual points raised? Why? Simple. Because he's manipulative liar who can't defend anything he says. Prove me wrong, Mikey. Prove me wrong.

Okay. As I said right here, I have no problem debating people who act like grown ups and are able to have a debate. Clearly, that is not you. Note that the two comments I highlighted above are just from the past couple *days*. I can go back months and point to many more of the same. What I do *not* see as I go back through your comments is *any* indication that you ever had anything substantive to say that does not involve childish name calling, temper tantrums or the like.

And, since you asked me to "prove you wrong" I will do so. I have no problem debating detractors.

I assume you are not going to claim that you are somehow a more accomplished or more knowledgeable individual than those two, are you?

Fact is -- and yes, it's fact -- I have no problem debating someone who I disagree with, when the time and place is right, if they can act like they're older than 12 years old. You have not demonstrated the ability to act older than 12.

Let's be clear: you are an anonymous commenter on a website, where you regularly attack with ad hominems, you've asked me to "fuck off and die" you call me a "lying shit" more times than I can count. And I can't recall you ever making a single substantive point.

Let me be 100% clear: I don't debate you because I don't know and don't give a fuck who you are, but more importantly, because you have shown no reason to "debate" you. I've proven you wrong. I debate detractors all the time. I don't debate you not because I'm worried about some anonymous, unstable, individual who has a *massive* sense of entitlement and self-worth -- but because you can't act like a reasonable adult. Act like an adult, and maybe someone here will treat you like one.

What does that say about you? Only bad things, Mikey. Only bad things. You're a coward.

One of us stands behind our words. One of us does not. I've already proven you wrong.

I don't know who you are, but I do know that you're the one spewing all sorts of anonymous and very personal attacks on me.

I have a two year old child. There's a very simple lesson that we know from raising him: when he throws a tantrum, you don't "debate" him, you quickly and firmly explain to him what the situation is and then you ignore him.

That's what I'm doing with you. If that means treating you like a two year old, well, look in the mirror, skippy. You've earned that level of "respect.""

Re: Re: Re:

Yep. All that, yet he won't just answer a simple question with a simple answer.

I know what you think, Rikuo. I'm asking Mike what he thinks. All he has are excuses, yet never will he just answer the question completely.

Personally, I think the one acting like a child is him, stomping off and refuses to actually engage a reader who questions his personal beliefs about a subject that is clearly near and dear to his heart.

Let's not make this thread all about the excuses Mike has for not answering. Let's make this the thread where Mike actually has the discussion.

Re: Re: Re:

Let me add this too, Rikuo.

His excuses for not engaging me in a conversation on this subject are clearly pretextual. The fact is, he has engaged me many times since he posted the comment you've linked to. As long as the subject is about something else, like, God forbid I mix up "value" and "price," he's more than willing to engage me.

He clearly just doesn't want to engage me on this very issue. Whenever I bring it up, all the excuses come out. He's been making the same excuses for over two years with me; I can only assume he's been dodging the conversation with others for much longer than that. All he ever has are excuses, never just a simple, honest, direct discussion about his true beliefs about piracy.

Another way you can tell that his excuses are empty is the fact that it doesn't matter who tries to engage him in the discussion. Even when it's people other than me, he does the same thing and either doesn't respond at all or makes excuses about why he doesn't want to respond. What he never actually does is just respond.

Don't believe me? Ask him yourself. It doesn't matter who asks the question, Mike won't answer it because he doesn't want to talk about it. It has nothing to do with me or anything that I've done.

Why won't he just answer the question? No bullshit, no excuses. Just have a normal conversation like a normal person. Apparently, that's too much to ask. I will continue to ask it, nonetheless, until he mans up and engages me on this topic.

I know you're a true-believer, Rikuo, and in your eyes Mike can do no wrong. But you really should be asking yourself why Mike refuses to ever discuss his true beliefs about a subject that he's obviously so completely obsessed with.

Don't buy his empty excuses about how some character flaw in the inquisitor precludes his ability to answer. That's obviously just bullshit and it's meant to deflect the conversation from ever getting to the point where Mike actually engages others on the subject.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Any chance you'll engage me today in a discussion about why you think copyright enforcement in the digital age is OK, Anonymous Coward? I'm still waiting for you to stop making excuses about why you won't/can't actually discuss the issue.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I don't recall you ever having asked me, and I have no idea who you are. Mike knows exactly who I am since I chose to let him know years ago. Sorry if I missed your post. I often just check Mike's profile to see what he's said, since I get so much annoying feedback and incredibly hostile responses from the TDers. Funny how Mike harps on the few times I've been mean to him, but he never mentions all the times he's been mean to me (he made this personal years ago) nor all the incredibly horrible things his followers have said to me. That said, query what statement of mine you're referring to, where I said copyright enforcement in the digital age is OK. I don't recall making the statement. Query too your personal opinion about Mike's years-long refusal to discuss his personal beliefs about piracy. Why do you think he refuses to ever discuss it?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yes, I understand that you and the rest of the TD faithful think piracy is great and Mike can do no wrong. I personally think that Mike's personal beliefs about piracy are important, as he has devoted his life to discussing the subject and has injected himself into the great copyright debate that is ongoing. Forgive me for ignoring your wishes that I'd just go away. I prefer to stick around for the purpose of engaging Mike on his beliefs. On TD, actually engaging the leader in a discussion on his beliefs seen as a bad thing, I regret to observe. I suspect this will turn into another thread where all we do is talk about Mike talking about it, but, of course, Mike won't comment and actually just talk about. This whole thing has been going on for two years. It could be over in an hour (if Mike actually just answers the question), or I can keep asking it day after day and year after year. Mike's choice.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I personally think all the problems come from everyone but the pirates. Companies can't read the market, the "education" that anti-sharing people spout doesn't add up, no real cited studies from anti-sharing people (99% of the numbers are made-up), and really, "sharing" is literally legal. Sharing anything is legal. The only real thing that makes content owners think it's illegal is morals or they want dictatorship control over an idea. Ideas become culture the more popular it is. Gatekeepers will never be able to control that culture ever again.

Demanding money for something you didn't make is illegal.

The Pirate Bay is not illegal. There is no reason to make torrent data illegal, except for control. The old gatekeepers want that control very badly.

There are quite a few well-done studies that mass-sharing increases the hold an idea has on culture.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You regret that yet again you're derailing another thread.

FTFY

It won't be over ever. Not with you. Not til Mike gives whatever answer you want to hear, one way or another. If he gives the one you're searching for, you'll harp on about "well, if that's the case why always with the piracy apologies". If he gives one you don't like, you'll keep going on and on and fucking on day in day out article after article with the same bullshit like always.

Things are not as simple as you'd like them to be, which is why I personally think that Mike should not answer your loaded question. You boil it down to simply one reason for why piracy isn't okay and then ask, agree or not? No middle ground. No room for debate. Etc. You're not here to debate. You're here to troll and derail and insult.

Why don't you fuck off already? That's asked in all seriousness. He's not going to answer you. At least not how you want him to. So just leave. Prove you're an adult. Prove you're not a troll. Prove Mike and the rest of us TDers wrong. Be a man, move on. It's honestly not just "Mike's choice". It's yours as well. And you have evidently made yours, which is to keep asking the same bullshit question and to keep derailing threads, all while insulting Mike and others who do comment on this site (and then acting high and mighty and placing the blame for your insults on them and then acting shocked that they would report your off topic and abusive nonsense). Fuck off and die already. (Just wanted to throw that in there. Because obviously, that's something that should always be stated when you want to show you aren't trolling and are actually here for a real debate.) : )

I see Mike's stalker is here, being creepy and flinging insult at everyone again. His pathological obsession has reached an all time record this past month. I sure hope Mike carries a gun, this stalker sure sounds psychotic enough.

Mike: I have no problem debating someone who I disagree with, when the time and place is right, if they can act like they're older than 12 years old. You have not demonstrated the ability to act older than 12.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

MIKE MIKE HEY GUESS WHAT MIKE! PIRATE MIKE PIRATE MIKE MIIIIIKKKEEEEEEE HEY HEY HEY guess what If you turn off the lights in your room stare at the screen and chant 'Pirate Mike, Pirate Mike, Pirate Mike' three times the ghostly face of Pirate Mike will appear and drag into you into the computer for all eternity!!

Re:

TIL direct quotes are 'spin.'

Your reluctance to address the issue is clearly your own--you refuse to talk about it no matter who instigates the conversation.

Do we really need to link the debates addressing this issue again? Why do you continue to pretend they don't insist they don't exist because Mike won't engage you for reasons that have been made crystal clear?

Re: Re: Re: Re: the whack-job

Or it he spent a very very long time writing it. Seems like they put the maximum amount of effort into making their mongoliodially depraved drivel.

I think people only respond to them anymore either for fun or because their very very bored, as in my case, I kind of miss trolls like Darryl right about now. They always had the most irritating comments to everything not just Mike.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yes, I understand that you and the rest of the TD faithful think piracy is great and Mike can do no wrong. I personally think that Mike's personal beliefs about piracy are important, as he has devoted his life to discussing the subject and has injected himself into the great copyright debate that is ongoing.

Debates about whether piracy is morally OK are on the same level as debating the morality of the actions of the lion that is about to eat you - ie not really the main point at issue.

I really shouldn't have to say this...

But to all those trying to reason with Mike's #1 stalker: STOP.

You do not try and reason with someone who has proven time and time again that they aren't interested in anything other than name calling, personal attacks, and downright creepy levels of obsession, as this just encourages them.

All these 'reasoning' attempts are doing is encouraging his obsession, by allowing him to feel justified via his perceived 'persecution', as well as derailing any potentially otherwise productive discussions of the topic being discussed in a given article.

Look, odds are the individual in question is either a) a troll attempting to derail any serious discussions, b) a person with an obsession focused on Mike, or c) a delightful combination of the two. Attempting to reason with a person like this is anything but productive, and plays right into their hands, so DON'T. Just hit 'report' and move on.

Finally, for those that are worried that by not attempting to counter this individual they will just allow him to think he's 'won', I ask: So what? One person's delusion does not reality make. If he gets to think he's 'won' the debate, let him, and save your energy for people who are actually looking for a real debate/discussion, and/or the trolls who can at least come up with new material every so often.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Mike has never denied making the statement because he knows that he's said it. Just last week he gave me a partial answer when he said that piracy is not OK because it ignores the wishes of content creators. I'm not going to bother finding the link where Mike initially said it (though I do have the link on different computer), but suffice it to say that he's never denied saying it and in fact partially given an answer as to why he thinks it's true. If he never made the statement to begin with, he would have said that rather than making all the excuses for why he won't answer the question. Deductive reasoning is your friend.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

As has been pointed out before, refusing to discuss it with you because you can't act like an adult isn't the same thing as refusing to discuss it.

And yet he discusses many other things with me. It's obvious that it's this particular issue, that gets at the very heart of everything that Mike Masnick and Techdirt is about, that he won't talk about. Why's he so sensitive about his personal beliefs about piracy? Clearly it has nothing to do with me, since, as I said, he has no problem discussing other issues with me. It's this particular issue. He won't discuss it with me or anyone else who asks. So no, his bullshit excuse about how I can't act like an adult is clearly just deflection. Anything but to actually talk about it.

Re: Re:

You do whatever you want. What's clear to me is that Mike has no problem discussing other issues with me, so his excuse that I'm unworthy to have a discussion with is obviously pretextual bullshit. Mike doesn't want to discuss his true, personal beliefs about piracy with *anybody*. It's not just me. Don't believe me? Ask himself yourself. No matter who asks him, he will never, ever discuss what he truly thinks about piracy. Why do you think that is? These are the actions of a man that is ashamed to admit what he really thinks. I can think of no other explanation.

But yeah, you go dig up all the links you want. I've heard all the excuses before. But ask yourself this: Why won't Mike just come into this thread, this day, and just answer the question? You know he's obsessing over every word we say about him. Funny how you can't shut him up about piracy--does anyone in the world publish more articles on the subject?--yet he won't have one single, normal, direct discussion about what he really thinks about it.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I'm sure he obsesses over every word I say about him. I obsess over the fact that he refuses to ever engage anyone in a meaningful debate about his personal beliefs about piracy. The two are not mutually exclusive. Do you actually have anything insightful to add to the conversation?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the whack-job

I gotta kinda agree with 'that one guy' below, just let the whack job think he's won, click Report, and move on. Out of 31 replies, now 32, nary a handful are relevant. I've been profiling users online for 15 years, and this whack-job is never going to be satisfied with any answer anyone gives unless it fits into his reality distortion field.

Even I have fallen bait to this psychopath.

OT: I have colleagues all over the world and everyone of them can confirm that not only has the USA fallen from the grace of our peer's eyes, but fallen mightily. I renewed my passport JIC this country is overrun by psychopaths, and I too can run to Ecuador. It's refreshing to know there is at least ONE country not suckin' the ball sack.

Re:

"Any chance you'll engage me today in a discussion about why you think piracy is not OK, Mike? I'm still waiting for you to stop making excuses about why you won't/can't actually discuss the issue."

Shut up already I'm getting tired of you asking the same questions again and again. You're nothing but a sock puppeting troll who thinks he's clever. Be aware I'm going to insult your every paragraph now.

"It's a simple, straightforward question, and the fact that you absolutely refuse to ever discuss it directly says no-so-good things about you, don't you think?"

You had your chance to discuss your rebuttal in an intelligent manor, you keep asking his views without giving yours. Once again, still nothing but a troll and cannot get the answer you want. So all you do is whine about it.

"I mean, you can't stop talking about piracy--nary a day goes by that you don't publish a new article about the subject. But when a TD reader wants to engage you on your personal beliefs on the subject, mum's the word."

He's posted several articles that you missed. It's your own fault you missed the response or Mike's point.

"I mean, you can't stop talking about piracy--nary a day goes by that you don't publish a new article about the subject. But when a TD reader wants to engage you on your personal beliefs on the subject, mum's the word."

You can't stop hounding Mike so and the result is you not deserving his time for one (or anyone else's..for that matter you're lucky I'm responding to your baby cries).

"I'm sure this comment will get "reported," just like all other comments on TD that question the man behind the curtain. Sad, really."

You know what's even more sad? You're almost the only one with this question. So no matter what you ask, or how you ask, but it's the same question you're asking the same one every time.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"I'm sure he obsesses over every word I say about him"
and with this I come to fully understand the person behind the comments.
There are lots of reasons people troll or provoke flame wars intentionaly.
Some have a twisted version of fun where they take amusement from sowing discord and displeasure, this guy isn't one of them.
Now there is another kind that do it because the attention they get makes them feel important, lots of people responding can make them feel that they are the center of attention and consquently make them feel important.
I've met many people who falsely believed that people responding to correct them or disagree with them meant something.
But it doesn't mean anything, the seemingly angry comments are posted by people who actualy don't care.
Off the net they have far more worthy causes to be angry, worried or happy about.
The posts they post are posted from work, at home on the bus and are only in anyway intense because largely they try to forget their day to day lives when they come to places like this and want to focus on something else.
That is why it is so easy for so many to easily get swept up in a flame war not because it's important but because it's a distraction.
What they post won't affect the day of any poster here we all forget about you the moment we go back to doing the many things we've been putting off to post here and only recall them when they once again try and shove their opinion in other's faces.
As I said I've known many such people as you.
Some would go out of their way to stir up trouble but many would just post positions they geninuely held in places they knew would get rejected with no intention of actualy convincing anyone.
The intense storm of disagrement that always results and degenerates into insults always fools them into thinking that it somehow matters to others what they think.
And that for those who feel meaningless and powerless is a great feeling.
If there is one thing this world is full of it's people who feel meaningless and powerless.
If the poster I'm responding to believes what they posted about Mike then they've reached a dangerous point for themselves where deulding themselves is preferable to realising just how little they effect Mike or the other posters here.
They will go away if ignored but it will take a long time and need every commenter to completely ignore them which simply won't happen.

Re:

Not sure myself, but I can tell you that a lot of the information released by him does infact endanger the lives of those who serve my country. He also endangered the lives of foreign dignitaries by making public certain ETA's to various embassies (which have had a habit of getting bombed by extremists very recently).

I hope that answers your questions to do some degree :-)

As for the documents that expose the mild relations screw-ups of said dignitaries, I'm all for that. It makes them more human, more accessible, and more human.

Re:

good question, and well asked, but we all know WHY Masnick does what he does..

because as you have clearly pointed out, he is a fraud.. and does not like to be questioned on that.. lest you find out that Masnick will not reply to you, because Masnick is not capable of presenting an argument..

masnick is a freetard, and if you question that, or his real motives, you'll get him upset, but not talking, (especially his true beliefs)..

Re: Re:

I'm not entirely sure about this, so take it with a grain of salt, but I've heard before that he offered to have either the military and/or someone from the government go through and remove any info that would have put lives directly at risk, but they just blew him off.

Assuming that's true(and again, I don't rightly know either way), then the whole 'endangering lives' bit would be on the military/government's shoulders for not having taken the chance to do damage control when it was offered.

just a thought

Mike Not Responding to Comments by Ac????? Let's discuss this.

Dear AC,

If you think Mike is not engaging you in reasonable discussion, you obviously have never tried to engage "Climate Scientists" in discussing their predictions.

The number of times that I have got no response to questions I have in relation to their predictions of global sea-level rises of > 1 metre over a period of a century makes Mike most of those people who discusses intelligently with everyone his ideas and any questions raised.

Try asking "Climate Scientists" simple questions like how much land based iced is required to melt to fit prediction, and how much energy is required to cause phase change from solid to liquid and how do we get this amount of energy to be stored inside the atmosphere and what are the energy transfer rates from atmosphere to ground, ocean and ice required. The best response I've ever had was "Good questions, I'll get back to you" and that was the only response back from one of the most senior climate scientists in Australia over five years ago. The usual response is either silence or giving the sense that you are an idiot.

Even politicians will at least try to waffle on and give you verbal diarrhoea to distract you from your original questions.

Mike be only a young fellow but he does try and discuss things in a civil manner.

If you want to raise questions you must also be prepared to do it in such a manner to give why and what you see is wrong and a solution that is well thought out. If you cant do this in a civil manner, the usual reaction will be that people will just get offside and ignore you.

There are many controversial subjects in the world, but to discuss these properly one must ensure that one is not attacking the other person personally.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re:

I am going to be nice:

You have a right to your own opinions if you can back them up soundly and logically. Lauding on and on using proxies and sock puppets will not get you what you want. Nor does it show logic, reasoning, and rational. Hell, the fact I'm giving you this sort of kimd attention says something of my goals.

Now, you keep getting annoyed saying "Mike stomps his feet and runs away like a child not showing his true beliefs". You really won't get any answers by doing the very thing you accuse Mike of.

Just to point this out, you stomp your feet like a child crying that you're not getting your way. My two year old nephew does that. Even if Mike did as you say "stomp his feet and runs away" at least it shows he would be mature enough to let this go.

Now to sum up:
You're stomping your feet like my two year old nephew when things don't go your way, and you cling onto what you want from the entire community until you get a response of attention or get your way.

Re: Re: Re:

The thing is, it should have been for military eyes only. Mind you not all the information on Wikileaks is what one would considder to deem classifiable, but the ETA's shouldn't have been exposed and they were. The problem I see (and again I admit I'm biased) is that he is exposing information to everyone and therefore keeping it from nobody. My concern is quite clear when that information reaches someone that shouldn't have it especially if it risks the life of dignitaries.

Now the upside to this is that said Government's start using codes where as mentioned numerous times in Star Trek II and Star Trek VI,
"No unencoded messages through open channels. In this case hours into days, minutes by days". But that's assuming they don't always do it :-)

Re: Re: just a thought

Re: Re:

Precisely.

Then why does Masnick seek to assign blame for the whole Assange debacle to the US? The US doesn't have a European arrest warrant for Assange. The US did not remind Ecuador that the fugitive is necessarily safe. And the US has not indicted Assange. So why the paranoid ravings. How has the US betrayed any values? It's all speculation masquerading as fact. Which is lapped up by his fellow tinfoil hatters.

Re: Re: Re: Man up Masnick !!!

You are the fucking moron that keeps trolling.
You debate nothing, you run when people show up with numbers and pop up again in another thread spouting the same crap over and over again and you want others to answer to you the same thing over and over again.

Re: Re: Re:

Re:

Ah lovely. I spent the day hiking in the mountains with my family and far far away from any kind of internet (or even cell) service, and I come back to you puking all over the comments again.

Let's correct a few of your lies.

1. I engaged with you regularly in discussions a year or so ago, whenever it was you showed up on this blog. It was then that I quickly learned that you have no desire to debate, but to pull "stunts" where by you pretend to "ask a simple question" and then when I answer it, insist I never answered it, and then throw a tantrum demanding I answer another dozen questions. It's like you're completely unfamiliar with Socrates. Or, worse, you think people thought he was smart. They didn't. They thought he was a jackass. Acting like Socrates doesn't make things any better.

2. After that you threw one of your temper tantrums, posting ad hominem and off-topic attacks on every single Techdirt blog post. We asked you, nicely, to stop it, and you responded by promising that you'd shape up. You did for a short while. I had even been on the verge of asking you to do a weekly favorites post... and then you fell off the wagon and went on a bizarre tirade again.

3. At that point I realized it was best not to respond to you in most cases. The only exceptions I made was when you were not acting like a jackass to try to encourage good behavior.

4. About a month ago, you went back into one of your tirade moods, flat out lying, saying that I was scared of you and unwilling to engage or answer your "serious questions." This is and was bullshit. So I explained in great detail that I am happy to debate those who disagree with me, but I was choosing not to debate you because you had shown no willingness to actually debate, but only to act like a complete jerk. Anyone who can actually see that I regularly debate much more knowledgeable and accomplished critics than you knows that it's true that I regularly debate those who disagree with me. I do it all the time.

5. A couple weeks ago, you flat out lied about me (again) and I challenged you to back up your words. You can see that here.

6. You promised that if I answered "one question" that you would answer my questions and back up the false comments you were making about me.

7. In a moment of weakness, and against my better judgment, I thought that I would try to actually give you a chance and engage with you by answering your question. So I did that here.

8. As if trying to prove to the world that my original assessment (for those who forgot, it's here) was right, you proceeded to go on yet another tirade: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and probably another two dozen places as well. It's really not worth it for me to point them all out at this point. But I did want to point out just how widely you seem to be spamming every thread claiming I won't answer the question that I very clearly did answer, in hopes that it would actually lead you to show that you could actually debate like an adult. Instead, you went in the other direction and confirmed what I expected: that you are incapable of having an adult conversation.

9. Nearly every single one of those comments was off-topic for the thread it was on, many having absolutely nothing to do with copyright infringement. In other words, you have been polluting the blog, as many other commenters have told you.

10. Despite your promise to back up the false statements you made about me if I answered your question, you've not done so. I'm assuming that's why you threw the tantrum. I called your bluff, and the best you can do is lash out like a two year old throwing a tantrum.

11. So, I will explain again -- and if you continue to act like a child, I hope people will simply save and point to this comment:

* I have no problem debating those who disagree with me and do so all the time.

* I had no problem engaging with you and used to do so.

* You threw a temper tantrum and started spewing ad homs and off-topic personal attacks on me, and I explained to you that was why it was pointless to engage with you if that was how you were going to respond.

* Last week, I gave you a chance to redeem yourself, to see if you really could debate like an adult, in that you promised to reveal the mystery sources for your false statements about me if I responded to a question.

* I did so. And you proceeded to throw another temper tantrum, pretend I did not answer the question I clearly did, and then polluted a bunch of blog posts that had nothing to do with our discussion with your off-topic tantrum, pretending I didn't answer the question I did.

I think that about covers it. I've learned that this won't satisfy you. You've shown that much is clear. This comment is for everyone else. In the future, when this guy comments, feel free to ignore him or just point to this comment. He has shown that he cannot and will not act like an adult, and he does not deserve to be treated as one.

Re: Re:

Please guys, whenever this jackass (or one of his sock puppets) starts whining again about not getting answered his oh so important questions, please just link to Mike's comment above and refrain from any more comments so the thread stays clean. Thanks.

Re: Re: Re:

It is the video of a crazy teenager getting angry and throwing himself on the wall and falling down, it just reminds me of this dude here, he keeps getting angry and splashing himself all over the wall.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Out of total bewilderment on how the following got reported (though given the idiot AC surfer is referring to, I would not be surprised if that particular AC put his "posse" up to it). So I am reporting what surfer said :-)

"Sounds like all you want is sufficient 'wording' from Mike so that you can sue Techdirt for 'conspiracy to defraud'. Does your life hang in the balance of an adequate response from Masnick?

Every controversial posting about infringing file sharing and you post first, if not within the first 5 replies.

Dude, get a life! Get over yourself, and go bother 4chan, see how far that gets you."

Re: Re:

I recollect warning him several times before the wrath of the community came down upon him. People at a few points were responding kindly comparison to my comments towards him. But I digress.

Mike, in all honesty, I had two thoughts pop in my head at once (oh it hurt trust me... =P )

I was half tempted to mention to you that maybe you should have been a tad more rough on him. But the PR instincts in me told that side of me to shut up and never suggest it to you.

Direct questions for you Mike, please take your time I'm in no rush for anything you wish to answer:

If this is the last of him (knowing full well it won't be....but hey we all tried right?) then no worries, If he pukes on a TechDirt post again, I will do my best to ignore him (no garruntees though) and contain myself. But if he persists enough, do I have permission to knock a few at him? Or do you suggest I do as you had suggested above?

Either way I'm cool, I'm simply wondering if there should be a go-ahead from anyone or any set limits if you (or anyone else) would prefer me to do my thing when it comes to spamming/schilling trolls.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Man up Masnick !!!

if that was the case I would run, if you just show some numbers.. but you have even less credability than masnick has, you have done nothing but troll and guard dog, Masnick is still absent, and coward and hiding behind you..

My opinions are clear, but unlike masnick I do not present lies as facts, then hide when questioned about said 'facts'.

you can woof woof all you like, but it does not help masnick hide from the facts, nor does it deflect away from the argument..

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Just to clarify: I actually don't think we're really disagreeing about the important bit at all. As I've mentioned on another thread where this came up, info that if made public would put lives at risk is not something that should be made public. Anything shy of that though I'd say is fair game.

With regards to the 'classified' angle, that one seems a bit more dicey, as more and more it seems like anything that would make someone important look bad ends up getting that 'protection', and not just important, potentially life endangering things, so just assuming that 'classified' means 'potentially dangerous information' doesn't really seem to be true any more.

Re: Re:

It sometimes gets to the point when a user acts so egregious that it makes the community become antagonistic or worse still constantly having to defend (feed) the malcontent that there sometimes is no other solution then to enact dire consequences.

These can range from:
* Outright banning
* Banning for a period of time (with a parole period after it)
* IP/account highlighting (mini script that shows this user is placed on an administrative parole period for bad behaviour)
* Outing of identifiable information (can be highly advantageous though also highly contentious and fraught with privacy dangers)
* Ostracising from community (I think that's happening already with the report button)
* Moderation of ALL submissions by this specific IP addy (though that is easily usurped by IP changing or proxies - which in itself is cause for full banning)

Basically it boils down to a standard community responsibility and rule that should never really have to be spelt out in a TOS or otherwise, in that if any member of an Online community fails to constantly and reasonably respect the rules and regulations as written or implied by a community (and it's owners) they should be banned from a specific area/activity either temporarily or permanently based on the severity of their wrongdoing and what the community itself expects.

This user in my opinion based on actions here and previously warrants something like the above to occur.

How it occurs is really up to the owners and in a more limited role the Stakeholders of this private place we call Techdirt though based on personally history of moderating and administering forums going way back to the days of 'The Well' and Bianca's etc, something is needed before it effects more than it already has (maybe that's this users real agenda *shrug* )

bit of rambling above but its a Sunday evening - and there's beer ;) , so I hope my thoughts are at least a bit comprehendable

Re: Re: Re:

The USG have publicly made clear their desire to charge Assange with crimes under the Espionage Act, which raises the chance of spending decades in jail before release, or decades in jail before execution. Some government figures have even publicly suggested swifter and less legal punishment for him. He has every reason to fear going anywhere that might increase the chance of being hauled away to the US. He'd be stupid not to.

Re: Re: Re:

The US has not done anything officially yet - they need to wait until after the November elections. In the meantime their game has been to make sure that Assange is kept in custody somewhere so that he is easily extraditable when the time comes.

That is why these allegations have been manufactured against him. Anyone who believes that these charges are genuine needs to answer the question "why would the victim of a sexual assault allow the perpetrator to continue to sleep in her bed for a week after the alleged attack?" (Source - The Guardian).

Assange has not been smart however. It would have been a better idea to have sent a lookalike to the Ecuadorian Embassy and left the country quietly by private yacht.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Can you point to any incident that has been enabled by Wikileaks information?

I have not heard of one.

This "endangering the lives of our operatives" excuse is one that comes up time and again.

The fact is that usually it is endangering the careers of our politicians that they are worried about.

The other fact is that the kind of lax security that is exposed by wikileaks is the real threat to our operatives. If a single low ranking operative can leak all that information publicly to the world then another low ranking operative can leak it quietly to our enemies and we would never know.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Man up Masnick !!!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Piracy is great? Nobody thinks robbery or criminal violence at sea is great except maybe fot actual pirates. But (file)sharing is great, yes.

And this is not about beliefs - I don't believe sharing is great, I know it (as in knowledge, not certainty). With filesharing people will weed out shitty movies and suddenly imdb scores are a bit more realistic (as in "people that have seen the movie aren't necessarily fans of it"). Scores went a lot lower and a lot faster - why do you think those CAM rips are hunted down? Because people get to see what shitty movie got made and social media takes care of the rest. All this happens very fast (one weekend) and suddenly studio can't rip off people since they already know the movie's shit.

And this is evolution - with human selection replacing natural selection.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Try a program called Handbrake, under Audio, you can mix-down to a more compatible quality for your particular system (good rule of thumb is target a level of quality known to playback to your liking). It is more than likely the built-in codecs in VLC might not be completely supported on your hardware.

With Handbrake you can convert the .mkv file to almost anything of lesser quality than the original, and potentially more compliant with your system.

There might be some worthwhile comments in here somewhere, but even in threaded this is a nightmare to read.

I know its hard, but can we please stop feeding the troll with well over 100 comments? We all need to work on our troll spotting skills and try to refrain, but a run and gun pissing contest in the comments makes it really hard to sift out actual comments that might have value.

I've skipped the last few Dotcom posts because I know that of the 300 comments 100 will be hes fat, evil, etc. and 175 will be trying to set those trolls right... Trying to find the 25 actual comments in such a large pool, its not fun.

And maybe this is what the troll wants, to just annoy people so they stop trying to have discussions on the actual topics, and drown out the viewpoint they fear.

Re: Re: just a thought

Re:

You are right, we should reply this specific moron with a link to Mike's comment (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/01171420087/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-techdi rt.shtml#c1210) once, report the comment and then move on. I'll put some effort on that.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

In terms of the Pinochet case, I skimmed the judgments in that case and it is important to note that that was under a very different legal regime.

Under the 1989 Extradition Act, the court could consider the case (due to the validity of the local arrest warrant) but it was primarily an executive decision (i.e. the Government deciding), and they rejected it partly on health grounds, partly due to the potential precedent of a Head of State in country A potentially being prosecuted in country B for their actions as Head of State (although the House of Lords rejected the second argument).

In contrast, the EAW "surrender" process is very much a judicial one; there is no direct input from the government; country A's appropriate judicial authority sends a request to country B's, if it is valid, the individual is surrendered. The result being that the UK government is legally required to take all steps it can to surrender Assange, when it wasn't to surrender Pinoshet.

[As an aside, since 2000, the UK also has a new extradition procedure, which turns that into much more of a judicial process; while the Government still gets a say, their decisions are subject to judicial review, and they must follow fairly strict guidelines. But that's another issue.]

Re: Re: Re:

Im not sure (please pardon my sniperish tone), but I think it's not a matter of if it would happen or if it happened but when will it happen. ETA stands for Estimated Time of Arrival. The ETA information of dignitaries arriving at embassies was availible to everyone through wikileaks. Given that he not only got that information by illegal means, he shared it with everyone and you know how much embassies just love being bombed in the Middle East.

So it may not have caused any bombing, but the information for the timing of attempted bombings was availible. That's what endangers people's lives.

Re: Re:

Just answer the question, Mike. You obviously took *a lot* of time to post that response about why you won't just respond. And again, proving that you *refuse* to respond.

You could end this thing today. Just have this conversation with me that I have been trying to have with you for two years. Stop delaying. Stop running away. Stop making excuses.

You mentioned that one reason piracy is not OK is because it goes against the wishes of content creators. Is that the *only* reason? Answer "yes," and the conversation is done. Answer "no," and I would then like the rest of the answer so that I have a complete answer.

I didn't ask about morality. If morality is part of your answer, then please just say that. If it's not, then it's not.

You obviously are more than willing to engage me. Just look at all the time you put into this response. Take 1/10th that amount of effort and just say why it is you think piracy is not OK.

And if you think I will stop asking and leaving you alone, you are completely mistaken. Every time you dodge the question, every time your followers berate me, my resolve grows stronger and stronger. The *only* to make me go away is to address the question that you so obviously and so desperately do not want to address.

I want to get to the bottom of what Mike Masnick and Techdirt is about. Funny how you don't.

Re: Re: Re:

As is abundantly clear if you read that post, my problem is not that I "don't have the time" to engage with you (though on some days that is also true), but that you have shown yourself unable to engage honestly. I answer your question and you throw a tantrum and vandalize this blog everywhere. Why would I encourage that kind of behavior by ever answering one of your questions again?

And if you think I will stop asking and leaving you alone, you are completely mistaken

You didn't even read, did you? I don't think you'll stop. I just want everyone to recognize that you're incapable of understanding what's happened.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

While I am aware of some political grandstanding by certain members of Congress, I am not aware of anyone associated with the judicial branch of the government (the one that can actually act) making such a threat.

Under terms of international extradition agreements, Assange may not be extradited for crimes that carry the death penalty. I just don't see how the US ends up in the headline of an article when they play no role in the current state of play. More FUD.

Re: Re:

hahahahha... I marked this a funny!!! What a joke, a Techdirt kick boxer????? I can just see you mincing around the ring slap-fighting the AC to defend the honor or your master. Thanks for the best laugh of the week Nancy boy.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I answer your question and you throw a tantrum and vandalize this blog everywhere.

You gave me an answer. I asked you if that answer was complete, i.e., if the only reason you think that piracy is not OK is because it ignores the wishes of some content creators.

Is that the only reason you think piracy is not OK?

It's a simple question, Mike.

I'm not stomping my feet or acting like a child or any of the other nonsense you accuse me of. I'm asking you an honest question that I don't know the answer to that I think gets to the heart of what you believe and do on Techdirt.

Can you just please answer my question? I am seriously asking you politely to just engage me on this point.

I swear on my life that I will stop bothering you about this if you just give me your complete answer to the question.

If you say that the thing about ignoring the wishes of some content creators is the only reason piracy is not OK, then that is your final answer and I will not ever ask you to answer the question again.

Seriously. Just have a simple, direct conversation with me. Please, and I am begging you at this point, no more excuses about why you don't want to answer. I just want the answer.

Why is it so hard for you to just answer this simple question? I'm trying to understand what you, Mike Masnick, really think about piracy. I see you make post after post, day after day, making excuses for pirates and defending pirates and being hypercritical of anything that's being done to curb it. When asked why you're pro-piracy, you deny it and say that piracy is not OK. I find it impossible to reconcile the two.

I think my question is simple and honest, and it's worthy of a simple and honest response.

Please, please, with sugar on top, just tell me why you think piracy is not OK. The complete answer, so I know that later you won't be able to claim that there was really more that you hadn't said (which is one of the many tactics I find you use to slither out of being cornered). I want to know why Mike Masnick, who claims to think that piracy is not OK, always writes articles, thousands and thousands of articles, that take the side of the pirates and not the artists.

I don't believe that you think that piracy is not OK. I think it's a completely fabricated position that you take to try and save face. But I think that at your heart, you think piracy is great and should totally be embraced, and that anyone who complains about it shouldn't because truly it's a wonderful thing. Your writings, day after day, say only that. I've yet to see you honestly support any artist or right holder who ever does anything against a pirate.

If piracy is not OK, as you claim to believe, then why do you always write about why piracy is OK and it's something to be embraced? What you write and what you claim when asked don't jive.

So I ask again, desperate to hear your answer (and no slimy double-talking nonsense), why is piracy not OK? Do you really believe that? Because I can point to thousands of articles where you start with the opposite position, that piracy is OK and it should be embraced, artists exercising their copyright rights should be shunned, and the whole world would be a better place if everyone stopped worrying about piracy.

Why do you write so many cheerful things about piracy if piracy is not OK? If you really thought piracy is not OK, I should be able to point to all the articles where you discuss why it's a bad thing and why it should be fought. But you don't write those articles, you write the opposite, and you and both know it's because you think piracy is OK.

The fact that you won't list the reasons why piracy is not OK only confirms to me that you really don't believe that. And the thousands of posts you have written arguing the opposite only prove the point too.

This leads me to another question I have, one that I know you will never, ever answer, and that's why do you feel compelled to pretend like you really think piracy is not OK when it's so incredibly and abundantly clear from your corpus of posts over the years that you believe exactly the opposite? What are you hiding? Why don't you feel like you can be honest about your beliefs?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The tl:dr version is this:

I think that you think that, on balance, piracy *is* OK. You think it should be embraced, not fought. You say so all the time. At the same time, you pretend like you think piracy *is not* OK, so you can claim to not be pro-piracy when asked.

I think you are being deliberately disingenuous about it, and the reason you don't want to have the conversation with me is because you don't want to have to admit that you're lying (by omission) when you say piracy is not OK.

You are not a good person, Mike. Not even close. You will lie, cheat, steal, manipulate... anything to legitimize piracy. I've got your number, you know it, and hence all the hemming and hawing rather than just explaining yourself fully and having a normal, human conversation about it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Your willingness to engage seriously and as an adult is belied by your final paragraph.

However, just to see if you'll actually live up to your word (doubtful):

If you say that the thing about ignoring the wishes of some content creators is the only reason piracy is not OK, then that is your final answer and I will not ever ask you to answer the question again.

It is my complete and final answer. You have already said that you don't believe me, but you have also promised not to ask again. Let's see if you can live up to that. Given your previous behavior, the answer is almost certainly no.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

OK, thank you. Now I know that the ONLY reason you think piracy is not OK is because it ignores the wishes of content creators.

And all the other possible reasons that people think piracy is not OK, such as the fact that it's illegal and that the people engaging in it are violating the content creator's rights, or that the assignees of the content creators don't like it and are having their rights violated too, or that it hurts people and causes harm to the economy, are not, in your view, actually problems or reasons to think that piracy is not OK.

That explains a lot. Deep down inside, you think piracy is wonderful. You can think of only one little reason why it's not OK (some content creators don't like it), but on balance, you think it's great. You don't even care that folks are having their rights violated. What's the problem with that, right?

Thanks for confirming what I have always suspected to be true. I shall cherish your honesty for years to come. Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful. Thanks again. I'm so glad to finally know that when you say "piracy is not OK," you *really* mean that it's fine and dandy, and other than the fact that some people don't like it (and we both know you think that they should like it), it's the best thing in the world.

That says it all, Mike. What it says about you is terrible, terrible things. But that's your cross to bear. Thanks for confirming finally and affirmatively what I always thought to be true--you don't *really* think piracy is not OK. You can only even think of one tiny way that it's not. But overall, you think piracy is OK.

Perhaps in the future you shouldn't be so misleading. If *on balance* you think something is fine, it's disingenuous to pretend like you think it's not OK because you think one small part of it is not OK. You deliberately lied about your feelings out of some silly need you apparently feel to make people think that you really think piracy is bad. It's the sort of stupid, manipulative binary thinking that I've come to expect from you.

An analogy. I love going to the movies. The experience is the best, except that I don't like the parking garage. It's arranged in an awkward way and it's difficult to navigate. Other than that, I love the movies. Now, under Mike's Magical Misrepresentation theory, I could pretend to tell people that I think the movies are not OK. I can point to the parking situation when asked. Of course, I go to the movies all the time and I always have the greatest time, despite the parking. But under Mike's skewed view of reality, I wouldn't be lying if I told people that the movies were not OK.

That's what you do. You think that if you can name one thing that's wrong with piracy, you're entitled to go around telling people that you think piracy is not OK, even if in actuality you love every single thing about it other than the fact that some content creators don't like it.

When you said piracy is not OK, you lied. You are a liar and a manipulator, and you'll do anything to see that piracy wins. We saw this with SOPA/PIPA. You'll say anything, no matter how baseless or idiotic. Anything. And when challenged by me or others on your posts, you run away or only superficially respond. Just like a fake.

I actually feel sorry for you, Mike. And if you want another quote to pull out later when you're whining about how I'm mean to you (of course, at the same time ignoring how you've been mean to me and how your commentators have been abusing me significantly for years), here it is: I hate your guts. I think you're the most despicable person in the IP debate. I think you're a total fake, and I think you know it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I've met a few crazy people in my time, but you'd beat them at crazy any day.

I don't know what you expected to accomplish with this shit of yours. I mean, in a year, nobody will remember this trash you wrote and nobody will care. In a year, Techdirt will still be here and probably will remain a somewhat well respected technology blog. Piracy will still be going strong. And you will still be an angry nobody.

In short, you accomplished nothing. All you did with this was raise the blood pressure of a few people, annoy the hell out of everyone (yes, everyone...notice that not one of the regular detractors came in your defence), probably burst an artery and come across as a lunatic.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Are you kidding? I got Mike Masnick to admit that he lied about believing that piracy is not OK. Well, as close to an admission as anyone could ever hope to get out of him, anyway.

I know you're a supporter of his, and presumably can never say anything bad about him, but I'll ask anyway: Do you agree that he was being intentionally misleading (i.e., lying deliberately) when he said that he thought piracy is not OK?

I mean, on balance, he thinks piracy is OK, right? So the fact that he can name only one small facet of it that isn't OK doesn't mean that he *really* thinks it's not OK.

Holy shit. I just realized that Mike posted a link to the same answer he gave some time back. And the AC finally "accepted" it, despite the rest of us posting the same thing. Except the only difference was Mike did it himself and said it was his complete and final answer. And what did the AC do after?

Keep reiterating the same point he's been making about the only reason piracy is not okay and a whole lotta ad homs about Mike.

Sheesh. As the guy above me said, I've met a whole bunch of crazy people but said AC takes the cake.

Re:

I accept his answer, and I won't ask him the question ever again. I did not accept the answer to a question I asked Mike that came from people other than Mike. Once I had his final answer, I told him what I thought about it. All I wanted was Mike's complete answer, and that's what I got. Getting it was like pulling teeth, but dishonest people like Mike are just that way.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Check out the "Reader Comment of the Week" at the end. Seems a bit unfair to Rush, though. He's not "Mike Masnick bad."

And for the record, I turned sour on you many, many months ago when I realized that "truth-finding" was not on your mission plan. You have no intention of ever having a reasoned discussion with any of your detractors.

I wish you had asked me to do a post. I would have told you to go fuck yourself. Absolutely.

Have fun with your mind-dead sycophantic army of half-wits, Mikey. You all deserve each other. I can't think of a worse bunch of misfits and sociopaths that the "Dirtoheads." Good job, Bill. That's catchy.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Again, this is why it is pointless to engage with you. I am always honest and present my opinion on things. That you *disagree* with my opinion and prefer to twist it into something that is a flat out lie (that I think "piracy is OK") suggests only things about you.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

There isn't an honest bone in your body, Mike.

Just because there is one dimension of piracy that you think to be not OK (that it ignores the wishes of content creators), that doesn't erase your feelings about all of the other aspects of piracy that you think are great.

Like I said, *on balance* you think piracy is OK.

And even the one thing about piracy that you think is not OK even has a huge asterisk next to it: While you acknowledge that piracy is not OK because it ignores the wishes of content creators, you think those content creators are wrong for not wanting piracy, and you'll defend anyone who violates those content creators' rights and impugn those content creators for not welcoming the piracy in the first place.

Your claim that you think piracy is not OK is just another bullshit lie from the slimiest snake in the IP debate. They broke the mold when they made you. The fact that you have written so many thousands of articles defending the pirates and admonishing their victims proves beyond a reasonable doubt how you really feel about piracy.

Nobody loves piracy more than you, Pirate Mike. Nobody. And even after admitting that you can only think of one reason why it's not OK (and there's thousands of pieces of evidence that show you really think it's great), you have the temerity to still lie about your feelings. Amazing.

I'd ask you to explain yourself, but (1) I honestly can't stand your lies, and (2) I promised I wouldn't.

Keep selling your lies, you snake oil salesman. I know the idiots eat it up. All sociopath demagogues have a following. Even Hitler had lots of fans.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Again. Read what you wrote. This is why no one engages with you. It's pointless. You aren't here for a discussion. You're here to act like a complete moron who can't understand basic concepts, and to pretend like you're smarter than everyone.

Notice that no one, not a single person here, takes your side.

Think about that.

I don't love piracy. I am a realist. I recognize that it exists and it's not going away, and it's a waste of an idiot's time to think about stopping it, because it doesn't go away. As such, I've worked hard to understand how to deal with it, and I recognize that there are ways to deal with it to effectively help artists make more money than they would have otherwise. At the same time, I also recognize that fighting piracy through the idiotic means you prefer means significant collateral damage on innovation and speech, without any actual benefit.

Now, as a reasonable, competent, thinking human being, I put those things together, and I say "gee, it makes more sense to focus on adapting, rather than enforcing."

And you interpret that to mean I love piracy.

Yikes. This is why it's silly to engage with you. You're not a reasonable human being.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

...are either 1) never proven, 2) misstatements of fact, or 3) not reasons to believe ANYTHING is "not OK," piracy or otherwise.

News flash: It is possible to believe none of those things, AND STILL BELIEVE PIRACY IS NOT OK.

The ONLY thing you have proven is that he doesn't agree with YOU. That's not believing that "piracy is fine and dandy." It's not even close. It's not even on the same planet as being close.

It's the sort of stupid, manipulative binary thinking that I've come to expect from you.

Thanks for clearing things up

Indeed, he did. He "cleared up" that he was absolutely, 100% right about you.

What it says about you is terrible, terrible things. You deliberately lied. You are a liar and a manipulator. You'll say anything, no matter how baseless or idiotic. Anything. And when challenged by me or others on your posts, you run away or only superficially respond. Just like a fake. I think you're the most despicable person in the IP debate. I think you're a total fake, and I think you know it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

1) never proven, 2) misstatements of fact, or 3) not reasons to believe ANYTHING is "not OK," piracy or otherwise.

News flash: It is possible to believe none of those things, AND STILL BELIEVE PIRACY IS NOT OK.

You know, even though it's against my better judgement, I'm going to expound on those things.

it's illegal

You know very well that Mike has said, repeatedly, that piracy is illegal.

Still, "it's illegal" may be a reason not to do something. But it is never a reason to believe that thing is "not OK." An example is plagiarism, which is not illegal in any way, but nobody believes it's OK. Another is prohibition: according to your view, you would have to believe drinking is "not OK" until 1933, but be "pro-drinking" afterwards. Obviously this is ridiculous.

This is: 3) not a reason to believe ANYTHING is "not OK."

the people engaging in it are violating the content creator's rights

If the people engaging in it are not "ignoring the wishes of content creators," then they are not violating the content creator's rights. In fact, if the content creator still holds the copyright, they are not even engaging in piracy.

More to the point: The only right that exists in the U.S. is the right of Congress (as representatives of the public will) to enact copyright law to promote the progress. Artists and publishers don't have any innate copyrights: "The enactment of copyright legislation by Congress under the terms of the Constitution is not based on any natural right that the author has in his writings... Not primarily for the benefit of the author, but primarily for the benefit of the public such rights are given." So, for example, if the public (through Congress) decides that non-commercial file sharing should be legal, or that copyright lengths should be cut in half, nobody's "rights" would be violated.

I guess that means the Constitution, Congress, and the Supreme Court also believe "piracy is OK."

But even if copyright didn't exist at all, Mike would still be against piracy. Because it is against the "wishes" of the content creators. You don't need copyright to have "wishes," and if you obeyed those wishes, you wouldn't pirate even if it were legal. So Mike's position is much more against piracy than someone who is against piracy merely because it's "violating the content creator's rights."

This is: 2) a misstatement of fact.

the assignees of the content creators don't like it and are having their rights violated too

So, let's say a musician says publicly that it's OK to "pirate" their music. But their label (the assignee) is against it. If you say that it's OK to pirate that musician's music (which Mike has not), you're not saying "piracy is OK," you're being pro-artist.

This is: 2) a misstatement of fact.

that it hurts people

I assume you're talking about such things as knockoff drugs - but that's not a piracy issue. Whether or not those drugs are harmful has nothing to do with whether they violate IP laws. Those drugs can be (and usually are) totally safe, but still violate IP laws. Conflating the two is totally dishonest.

This is: 2) a misstatement of fact.

causes harm to the economy

No reliable study has ever shown that piracy harms the economy. It's possible that piracy harms a specific industry (and even here, there's no proof - as even the GAO made clear). But that doesn't mean that the overall economy is harmed. For example: Say, for the sake of argument, that piracy caused a record store's demise. But where that record store once stood, there's now a Best Buy. Best Buy hires at least as many people as a record store, and pays them wages that are at least as good (to say the least). The net loss to the economy is zero.

Furthermore, as Mike has repeatedly shown, those areas of the economy that do not depend on IP, are much stronger and grow much faster than those that do.

This is: 1) never proven (bordering on 2) a misstatement of fact).

Furthermore, this is also: 3) not a reason to believe ANYTHING is "not OK." That would mean that something that is good for the economy is automatically OK, which is not a morally defendable position. It might be better for publishers' incomes if we outlaw public libraries, but that doesn't mean shutting down libraries is OK.

It's no wonder Mike does not give these as reasons for thinking piracy is not OK. They are indefensible.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

1) never proven, 2) misstatements of fact, or 3) not reasons to believe ANYTHING is "not OK," piracy or otherwise.

You know, even though it's against my better judgement, I'm going to expound on those things.

it's illegal

You know very well that Mike has said, repeatedly, that piracy is illegal.

Still, "it's illegal" may be a reason not to do something. But it is never a reason to believe that thing is "not OK." An example is plagiarism, which is not illegal in any way, but nobody believes it's OK. Another is prohibition: according to your view, you would have to believe drinking is "not OK" until 1933, but be "pro-drinking" afterwards. Obviously this is ridiculous.

This is: 3) not a reason to believe ANYTHING is "not OK."

the people engaging in it are violating the content creator's rights

If the people engaging in it are not "ignoring the wishes of content creators," then they are not violating the content creator's rights. In fact, if the content creator still holds the copyright, they are not even engaging in piracy.

More to the point: The only right that exists in the U.S. is the right of Congress (as representatives of the public will) to enact copyright law to promote the progress. Artists and publishers don't have any innate copyrights: "The enactment of copyright legislation by Congress under the terms of the Constitution is not based on any natural right that the author has in his writings... Not primarily for the benefit of the author, but primarily for the benefit of the public such rights are given." So, for example, if the public (through Congress) decides that non-commercial file sharing should be legal, or that copyright lengths should be cut in half, nobody's "rights" would be violated.

I guess that means the Constitution, Congress, and the Supreme Court also believe "piracy is OK."

But even if copyright didn't exist at all, Mike would still be against piracy. Because it is against the "wishes" of the content creators. You don't need copyright to have "wishes," and if you obeyed those wishes, you wouldn't pirate even if it were legal. So Mike's position is much more against piracy than someone who is against piracy merely because it's "violating the content creator's rights."

This is: 2) a misstatement of fact.

the assignees of the content creators don't like it and are having their rights violated too

So, let's say a musician says publicly that it's OK to "pirate" their music. But their label (the assignee) is against it. If you say that it's OK to pirate that musician's music (which Mike has not), you're not saying "piracy is OK," you're being pro-artist.

This is: 2) a misstatement of fact.

that it hurts people

I assume you're talking about such things as knockoff drugs - but that's not a piracy issue. Whether or not those drugs are harmful has nothing to do with whether they violate IP laws. Those drugs can be (and usually are) totally safe, but still violate IP laws. Conflating the two is totally dishonest.

This is: 2) a misstatement of fact.

causes harm to the economy

No reliable study has ever shown that piracy harms the economy. It's possible that piracy harms a specific industry (and even here, there's no proof - as even the GAO made clear). But that doesn't mean that the overall economy is harmed. For example: Say, for the sake of argument, that piracy caused a record store's demise. But where that record store once stood, there's now a Best Buy. Best Buy hires at least as many people as a record store, and pays them wages that are at least as good (to say the least). The net loss to the economy is zero.

Furthermore, as Mike has repeatedly shown, those areas of the economy that do not depend on IP, are much stronger and grow much faster than those that do.

This is: 1) never proven (bordering on 2) a misstatement of fact).

Furthermore, this is also: 3) not a reason to believe ANYTHING is "not OK." That would mean that something that is good for the economy is automatically OK, which is not a morally defendable position. It might be better for publishers' incomes if we outlaw public libraries, but that doesn't mean shutting down libraries is OK.

It's no wonder Mike does not give these as reasons for thinking piracy is not OK. They are indefensible. If you depended upon these reasons for your beliefs, you would be forced to change your beliefs.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Forest_GS said: "The Pirate Bay is not illegal."
Quoted for truth. It's stupid how all the corporations got together and said, "Some people use torrents to illegally download copyrighted material, let's get them declared illegal." They totally ignored the multitude of legal uses like sharing user created content, open source freeware, and CC and PD files. Well, guess what, MAFIAA? Cars are sometimes used in vehicular homicide. Maybe we should have cars declared illegal while ignoring the legal uses for those like going to work, getting the kids to school, and taking somebody to receive medical treatment when you can't afford ambulance services. MAFIAA: Majorly Asinine Fucking Idiots' Association of America.

Re: Re: Re:

Don't even do that. Don't even click report. Just let his comment sit there, forlorn and unimportant. Give him nothing to argue with. Maybe if he gets absolutely no attention whatsoever for long enough, he'll just go away.

I know, it's a pipe dream, because some people just can't stand to not feed the troll, but it's what I would like to see happen.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re:

What is interesting here is that you IP blocked a bunch of people, including myself, even thought I am not the person you are talking about.

It seems that all you did was block any dissenting views. In some parts, that is called censorship.

It's just really too bad that you feel you need to work this way. Have you considered that some of the anger is because, while you point to all sorts of "here here here" deals, that most of them are weasel worded explanations of why you aren't taking a stand? Perhaps the lack of a solid stand on issues is what gets people upset.

I think that worse, you have trained Leigh to do the same. He answers poorly, insults people, and then gets mad because they insult him back. It starts somewhere, and it isn't in the comments.

Yes, the anonymous coward type of being rude in some of the threads. I can understand how he feels. Whenever someone brings up the other side of the argument or alternate answers, they are either shouted down with insults, or just "reported" into being censored out of the discussion. That isn't very useful.

Your use of IP blocks on posting is a sad commentary on your unwillingness to deal with the issues straight up. The anger you see from some comes because of it. You may feel you are answering, but really I can assure you that you are not.